Berndetta Howard v. City of Greensboro, Alabama, 11th Cir. (2015)
Berndetta Howard v. City of Greensboro, Alabama, 11th Cir. (2015)
Page: 1 of 7
WILLIE HUDSON,
Defendant-Appellant,
CITY OF GREENSBORO, ALABAMA,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 3, 2015)
Case: 14-15308
Page: 2 of 7
Case: 14-15308
Page: 3 of 7
Case: 14-15308
Page: 4 of 7
violently, messed up desks in the Clerks office, and fell to the floor with Hudson,
all the while screaming obscenities. In the meantime, Hudson remained composed
and held Howards arm firmly to prevent her from fleeing until another officer
arrived to relieve him of Howard.
The district court ruled that genuine disputes of material fact barred
summary judgment against Howards claims of excessive force and assault and
battery. The district court denied Howard qualified immunity on the claim of
excessive force because of the vigorous dispute as to the amount and
level/severity of force used by Chief Hudson and even whether he was making an
arrest when the physical contact began. The district court also denied Hudson
statutory immunity on Howards claim of assault and battery based on the
conflicting evidence about whether Hudson acted willfully, maliciously,
fraudulently, or in bad faith. See Surrency v. Harbison, 489 So. 2d 1097, 1104
(Ala. 1986).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the denial of summary judgment based on qualified
immunity. Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir.
2013). Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence establishes that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Id. To make that determination, we construe all facts and draw
4
Case: 14-15308
Page: 5 of 7
all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Hudson contests the denial of qualified immunity with respect to Howards
claim of excessive force. Hudson argues that his use of force was not excessive in
the light of Howards convictions and her admission that she struggled after
Hudson grabbed her arm. Hudson also argues that the district court should have
evaluated Howards claim of excessive force as a violation of substantive due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment. These arguments fail.
The district court did not err by denying Hudson qualified immunity. The
record contains material issues of fact about when Hudson seized Howard and
whether Hudson used excessive force to detain Howard. See Feliciano, 707 F.3d at
1253. Hudson submitted evidence that he responded to Howards troublemaking
by trying to quieten her, she refused to comply and he arrested her, and he
responded to her violent resistance by maintaining a hold on her arm. But Howard
provided a first-hand account that Hudson became irate, twisted Howards arm,
and drug her through the office, causing her to collide with office equipment and
to tumble to the floor before telling her that she was under arrest. Summary
judgment was inappropriate because of the direct contradictions in the evidence.
Case: 14-15308
Page: 6 of 7
Case: 14-15308
Page: 7 of 7
established that Hudson responded to her verbal abuse with brutality unnecessary
to seize Howard or to steer her to the jail. See Fils, 647 F.3d at 1289. Hudson did
not have to contort Howards arm or drag her around roughly to detain her for a
minor offense, to prevent harm to himself or others, or to prevent her from fleeing.
See id. at 128889. Although Howard subsequently struggled with Hudson, she
did so arguably to avoid the unlawful force unleashed on her. A reasonable jury
could find that Hudsons use of force was excessive and violated the Fourth
Amendment.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the denial of qualified immunity to Hudson on Howards
claim of excessive force.